bitbol

What parent doesn't have boxes full of pictures of their kids (or nowadays hard drives full). But the problem in the current state of affairs is that people are so wickedly paranoid about everything that they seek to destroy everyone else's sanity because they fear everything. A man photographing his own kids was called a "pervert" when parents started to think that he was taking pictures of other people's kids to post on the internet.

Half of what I don't understand is why people were freaking out in the way that they did. He was confronted simply for taking pictures, not that he was doing anything dodgy. The owners of the slide that his kids were on claim that "Our policy is to ask people taking photos whether they have children on the slide. If they do, then that is fine." However, what the operators don't seem to understand is that even if they don't, there isn't much of any legal action that could be taken.

People think that taking pictures of people that you don't know is a crime, especially when the subject is a child. I find this funny because in my high school photography class one of ours assignments was to take pictures of young and old people. Would you criminalize a class of photography students for taking pictures?

As with any article, the comments that follow it are often more important to read than the article itself. Depending on where you read the article, you get be surprised at people's common sense or appalled at the stupidity of mankind. Here are some from the original article:

I understand the parents concern. I see nothing wrong with the dad telling the other parents of his intent so they could keep their children out of the photo and then extending the same courtesy to the other parents. Normal parents did not create this multi billion dollar industry mess. We have to protect our children the best was we can.
- Lucy MacKay, Georgetown Ky

This poster is quite unrealistic, and leads me to ask many other questions. After her short post, I have to wonder if she herself announces to others that she is taking pictures of her own kids while the play in the park. When you do announce that you are taking pictures of your own kids, doesn't that make you seem just a touch overprotective?

I sympathise totally with Mr Crutchley [the father], I was recently in a country park with my wife and daughter. My wife had gone to buy the three of us some ice cream, and in the meantime my daughter fell over on some play equipment.

I of course picked her up in my arms to soothe her, and within moments a woman had come over to me and asked where the girl's mother was. I could see in her eyes and tone that she was suspicious of me holding a crying girl. The woman absolutely refused to leave our side until my wife returned.

Just like Mr Crutchley says, it spoiled my enjoyment of the day, and made me wary to go anywhere near my own daughter for the rest of the day - ironic in this age where fathers are so often accused of not paying attention to their children.

I cant help but wonder if anyone would have said anything at all if it had been my wife holding my daughter instead of me.
- John Thomas, England

There is an interesting dilemma where father's are being criticized for not being involved with their kids, but then when they are involved (especially in this case, for safety) the worrying parents of other kids condemn them for being near kids in public.

This is a direct result of the NSPCC's campaign over the last few years to spread the fear of abuse and paedophilia. Sadly this has had the side effect of people (i.e. men) being to scared to help if a child is in trouble and also accounts for the huge drop in male primary school teachers and role models.
- R Williams, Aylesbury, UK

It would take my a long time to find it, but there was an article about a father who volunteered his daughter to take part in a study. The girl's job was to sit on a bench in a mall a few feet from a "Missing Children" poster. Almost all people walked right by the girl. When people who walked by were questioned, many (particularly males) said that they were afraid to do anything for fear that other parents would attack for speaking to a child.

The study proved two things, that no one tried to abduct a child sitting by themself on a bench, and that had the child really been missing nothing would have been done.

On the BoingBoing mention of this article, there are general level-headed people who see what is worng in the situation, being that a father can't even take pictures of his own kids:

It is rather sad. My wife worked as a lunch supervisor at an elementary school. Being a "small town" person and having a flock of younger siblings in her youth she would give crying kids who'd bumped heads or dropped their deserts a hug or pat on the back. Her supervisor said that just wasn't done - there would be no touching whatsoever.

From this I assume that the proper thing to do if you find a child needing help is to review the situation and determine f there is a non-contact way of helping them. If not, just walk away or phone 911 to have properly trained and bonded staff initiate human to human contact - providing parental permission has been arranged.
- Woodwose

Especially in elementary aged kids, I don't see where it is beneficial to the children that the teacher is prohibited from making any contact with the child, even if the child is hurt. I would bet that most of those children feel better because of the comforting that they got from the teacher. It's not like a teacher would do anything intentionally wrong because it would ruin their career if they did inappropriately touch a child. A hand on the shoulder isn't going to kill a child.

Speaking of protocols for teachers, it is ridiculous what they have teachers doing. One of the teacher that I had wore latex gloves so that she could put on a band-aid. A gym teacher I had once told us about how a parent thanked him for not following the "correct" protocol for emergencues. An ice-skating boy slipped and cut his wrist. If the teacher had spent time to look for gloves, the boy would have likely bled to death. Instead, the teacher reacted quickly and saved the boy's life.

I am a woman, (hence the name, cranky old woman) and my grandson is on a junior soccer league. So, every Saturday morning, I go to take pictures of his game, and I am subject to a lot of evil looks as well. It's kinda difficult to take just pics of him, when there are nine other kids on the field. I took some pics of him once playing with the next door neighbors, and when I gave some copies to the parents, they were quite rude, and told me they did not want me to photograph their boys. I was hurt, stunned and insulted. But, I am trying to decide how I might have reacted were I in their shoes. Must I be constantly sizing everyone I meet with a camera as a child molester? I guess I can no longer assume others good intentions.
- Cranky old woman

Given the fact that the grandparent was the neighbor, and that it would (should?) be one of the people that you know the best, it is crazy that a parent would be so defenisive about it considering that it is perfectly acceptable to take pictures of your grandkids. When I was a kid, I would spend hours at a time at my neighbors house with her grandkids, and that was one of the few places that I felt totally comfortable. As a kid, I would think nothing of it if she was taking pictures of her grandkids and I playing together.

My friend was taking pictures of me at a park while i was wandering around looking at flowers under the influence of something or other. Some little (adoreable) demon kid ran up and started throwing grass at us. Whatever, He wasn't hurting us and we were laughing about it. So my friend starts taking pictures of the kids, and THEN the mom comes over.

Guess which aspect of the situation concerned her most? Her kid throwing shit at strangers? or photography.

As long as kids are fucking adoreable, shutterbugs will take pictures of them.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/captaintim/2644448055/
- Cpt. Tim

This is completely valid. Many kids, like my nephew, will run to the camera seeking to have their picture taken. And it's not like people don't take picture of random kids. If you see a group of kids at a park doing something completely silly, there is nothing wrong with taking a picture to remember that silliness. I have taken pictures of kids before when I was at airshows. Planes can only be interesting for so long, then the interest as a photographer is drawn to pictures of people enjoying the show, which includes kids.


As a teenager myself, I am fresh out of the age where even my own mother fit into the "unhealthy paranoia" category. I play soccer about twice a week with a drop-in group. My mom always worried about the whole child predator thing and was always warning me to be careful, and thankfully, I have never once listened to her about this. The group that I play with consists of primarily me and one of my best friends, and the rest are primarily adult males. Have I ever once felt uncomfortable around them? No.

After nearly a year with this group and nothing happening, my mom has finally calmed down. This might also have to do with the fact that she just randomly dropped in once to watch, which was rather annoying because the stare of my parents creeps me out more than anything else.

Labels: America, Kids, News, People, Rants, Stupidity

ABC News ran a variation to the previous story, one that varied slightly from the one that I posted two days ago. This article includes some of the details about the school and their response, including this little gem:

"The principal did not list any information other than students' names on her personal call list, and she certainly did not specify the sexual orientation of any student," said Van D. Turner, Jr., associate general counsel of the Memphis City Schools Board of Education, in a statement provided to ABCNEWS.com. "Additionally, the list was never posted publicly anywhere at the school."

Listing the couples together and then claiming that the school never specified sexual orientation is nonsense. Almost no one is stupid enough to not make the decision. Also, the school claims that the list was not publicly posted, however, the ACLU says that it was perfectly in view of anyone in the office.

The response that I have seen from places like Digg is also amusing. Some of the responses are either ignorant, or otherwise blind to the point of the story.

It isn't private when there is PDA in the hallways.

The thing is, there was an influx of response from the rest of the student body, which obviously means that not that many people were aware of it before. Also, the school was seeking out the names of couples, even if there was never an issue of PDA.

They want to be treated as equals, don't they? Then there shouldn't be anything wrong with outing them as well as the other heterosexual couples.

Many of the comments on Digg are about treating the two boys as any of the other students, but they fail to note the consequences that happen as a result of the fact that the school went as far as to contact parents, who were unaware that their child was gay. Ideally, it should matter, but the fact is that parents may freak out a little when they are dealt a considerable piece of news such as "your son is dating another boy." Which leads me to one of the only thoughtful comments that I saw:

Oh right, because gay couples have never been the victims of discrimination and harassment, sure, lets just just throw them to the hateful bigots and blame them for their own fate. Lets just ignore all the cases where homosexual teens have been bullied, killed and committed suicide just so we can sit on our high horses and mock them for wanting to be treated as human beings.

Unfortunately, there are fewer smart people, such as this one, and more intolerant like the two further above. I think the problem lies in the fact that people don't know how to put themselves in the position of someone else. Unfortunately, this is the world we live in.

Labels: America, Gay, Kids, News, People, School, Stupidity

In Memphis, Tennessee, a principal has created a stir after she asked staff to compile a list of couples. The object was to cut back on the public displays of affection in the school. However, in the process, the principal outed two boys who had just started dating. From the article:

She's accused of publicly posting the names of those students, including two boys, Andrew and Nicholas, who had just started dating. The ACLU says that in doing so, Beasley revealed their relationship to other students, teachers and even their parents.

This story has ruffled the feathers of many, regardless of whether or not they support equal rights for gays. On one side is the argument that exposing these two boys has wrecked a significant portion of their high school career, but also the idea that regardless of sexual orientation, the principal sought to compile a list of all of the people who were dating, something many saw as a perverse abuse of authority.

Nicholas says his teachers and other students treat him differently as a result of Principal Beasley's decision and that he and Andrew have both had to deal with verbal assaults. Nicholas was also not allowed to go on a trip to New Orleans to help rebuild homes because, as one of his teacher's explained, he would "embarrass" the school by engaging in gay affection.

First off, I think that the school must be incredibly intolerant if the sheer presence of a gay couple offends anyone. I can understand the intention behind wanting to cut back on displays of affection in the way that students should not be making out in the middle of the hall, but simple hand-holding or likewise is no bid deal and should be ignored.

This principal had very poor foresight to think that publishing a list would accomplishing in the way of stopping displays of affection. For one, those on the list would likely be the ones who are already very public in their relationship. The only surprise may come in the form of who is if they are bring caught having a public display of affection, there obviously isn't a problem, but this principal sought to make it a problem.

Another significant issue to ponder is how the staff came to know about the two boys' relationship in the first place. To me, it almost sounds as though they had sought out a teacher for help given the circumstances, but that teacher turned them over and betrayed their trust (only an educated guess). How many false positives are on that list? In some friendships, their is a very fine line between what would be considered a friendship and what is dating.

These kids are bring taught that having any physical contact with someone, even someone that they care for is a bad thing. These kids are being taught that the only accepted form is one that they dictate. The principal is endorsing intolerance. Teachers are often tolerant of the intolerance in schools. Even when a student makes a racial slur or some other direct attack, teachers often sit back and doing nothing to correct the situation. If nothing else, their involvement is often limited to "don't say that again."

My school is just beginning to try to address the issue of racism in a school were the students are very tolerant of race. My school is primarily white, but there are some minorities, which according to our school newspaper, feel as though they are bring alienated. However, the school is addressing the wrong problem. They think that we (as whites) are being intolerant of the minorities when it is the minorities who are backing away from social interaction by choice. Aside from racial minorities, there is nothing being done to create an atmosphere of tolerance. The students are doing a better job than the school; it is the school that gets in the way of everything.

Labels: America, Gay, Kids, News, People, School, Stupidity

OpenOffice is the free alternative to Microsoft Office, a is something schools should consider. The author points out that with MS Office, schools pay out between $50 and $100 for the software. Even if the software isn't quite as robust as MS Office, the fact that it is free will help you forget about it. Still, for all intensive purposes, OpenOffice is sufficient for the job.

Even still, purchasing Microsoft Windows for school computers is a significant waste. School can save a considerable amount of money by switching to Linux. Before I get all fanboyish about Linux, I must say that I don't necessarily object to Windows being used, but that school's should not have to pay for the software they use. It is pathetic that schools should waste so much money on software.

Take my school for instance. There are about ~150 computers in the labs alone, not counting the ones that teachers get to use in the classrooms. On top of that, there is one lab where the computers are near-new with dual-monitors and extra software. On each of those computers is AutoCADD software that the teacher claims to be $5000 per computer. None of that even includes buying the operating system. If the software companies would donate to the school, they could invest in computers that will last longer and require less maintenance. But that would make sense.

Labels: Computer, Kids, Linux, Microsoft, School, Technology

Against any and all logic, a teacher was suspended for two months for allowing a pro-gay article to be published in the schools newspaper. The article in dispute is written by a student who promoted tolerance for gay teens. From the article:

Ten students attended the county’s school board meeting last Tuesday to get the newspaper on the next meeting’s agenda. They were then directed to assistant superintendent Andy Melin, who claimed that the opinion piece was biased.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it alright for bias in an editorial? Isn't editorial opinion? Why does it matter? If you ask me, it is this type of behavior that the student wrote the article for in the first place. Not only are the other students harsh on gay teens, but also the faculty. Gay teens have just as much right to be heard as any other person.

Labels: America, Gay, Kids, News, School

I have hear that this is making national news:


This is why I hate many parents at school sports events. Back when I played soccer for my school, I became so angry at some of the parents for the things that they would do. Many parents will stand in the bleachers and yell at the referees for everything that they do. Many times I want to break their jaw so they will be quiet; I just want to watch the game.

Labels: Kids, News, People, Video, YouTube

ProBlogger reported today that there is a twelve year old blogger who is getting a little fame. I think that that is pretty cool, but I personally am iffy as to the truth of this. I am starting to believe the story because of what BBC has reported (with pictures).

If you were to think of trying to read a twelve year old's writing, you would expect something that is incredibly hard to read simply because twelve year olds are bad at writing, but that is not the case here. His writing is mature enough that he is either brilliant, or he has someone proofing what he writes.

I do, however, get the feeling that some of this is a con to get money. People tend to be more generous to kids, and when a kid is asking for help, as David is, it's hard for many people to resist. The post I just linked to is the one that concerns me. It can't possibly cost $5000 to run a website. Hosting, buying, whatever, the number does not add up. I'll keep an eye on this, and see where this goes, maybe add a follow-up post some other day.

Labels: Blogging, Internet, Kids

Most recently, a Chicago family got a little surprise with their newly bought Zune, resulting in a Zune preloaded with gay sex videos, and the present was for their daughter. Walmart is pointing the finger at Microsoft, but nobody believes them. The box is reported to have been opened and a charger was missing. The father says the store just didn't check what was being returned.

Bank of America is back in the news again, this time because they refused to cash a check and demanded that a customer give a fingerprint. It's not like BofA is in the best position to be doing this. It seems that they are fairly money oriented, and a little too happy to use security officers.

Home Depot is even making the headlines after an older gentleman returned to his home to retrieve a gun after no one would help him. There is no way that you can deny anything is wrong with your store when people are ready to shoot things up because they are so tired of the customer service.

Labels: America, Kids, News, Oddities, People

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) wants to push a proposal that would require bloggers, website owners, and just about anyone who has anything to do with the web to report "illegal" images to authorities. This has caused quite a ruckus on many fronts. From the article:

Millions of commercial Web sites and personal blogs would be required to report illegal images or videos posted by their users or pay fines of up to $300,000, if a new proposal in the U.S. Senate came into law.

I can see this failing for many reasons, the most obvious of them being that nobody wants to deal with all that. I would expect that if everyone reported everything that was even questionable, the officials handling that would be too overloaded to do anything about it. Also, anyone who publishes on the web, and anyone who doesn't, would agree that it would make everyone's life easier if it could just be removed and ignored. Sure, blatant disregard for the law should be reported, but the websites themselves should not be held responsible.

Slashdot is how I first came across this article, and as if everything to do with Slashdot, there is some good coming through the comments. The first that I came across is about how the United States needs to get its priorities straight. No Slashdot article would be complete without sarcasm. And one of the logical reasonings behind this, regarding censorship and tolerance. I hate politics.

Labels: America, Internet, Kids, Legal, People, Politics

As I would have guessed, gamers are dysfunctional and deserve to be removed from public contact. Apparently the guy was a little mad that he didn't get his precious game so he beat up a fifteen year old in order to end up being arrest and not get the game.

Apparently, the argument developed after store clerks informed the crowd that stocks were running out, at which point the 36-year-old customer attempted to cut in line and when challenged swore at and repeatedly punched the 15-year-old who was to receive the last copy of the game.

Naturally the police were called and the man was arrested for aggravated assault and is currently awaiting arraignment at a local correctional facility.

That guy deserves to be locked up for years. There is no logical reason that he could possibly come up with to justify his actions.

Labels: Kids, News, Oddities, People

After quite a ruckus in the blogosphere, The stolen iPod lawsuit finally ends. The story on all of this runs back a few months, but an agreement has been made. From the article:

"Melanie McCarthy, Shannon’s mother, said she considers the used iPod offering 'an insult.' The iPod has more space for songs and a video playback capability that Shannon's iPod Nano did not have, but the screen and back were scratched and worn, compared to what she said was Shannon's new iPod.

McCarthy told French she simply did not have the time to go through with a trial, but did not consider the used iPod comparable to Shannon's loss of a brand new one. However, she said by helping to start a junior CrimeStoppers program she wants to take a bad experience and turn it into something positive."

Now we will take a moment to step back and examine the past. The girl ended up with a used iPod; she could have gotten a new iPod, case, and $50 in iTunes music, but her mother refused the anonymous donation. They could have gotten more out of all this and avoided all of the publicity if they had just accepted the offer.

I am also annoyed at the fact that the mother is "insulted" by all of this. She was the one pushing for court, she refused an anonymous donation so she could continue to harass the other girl. I guess saying that they are probably no longer friends would simply be stating the obvious.

Labels: iPod, Kids, Legal, News, People, Rants

With a new report assignment comes a new book that I have to read. Last time I was blessed with being able to read a book by Bill Bryson. This time, we got to choose the book that we wanted to read; I chose "Why Gender Matters."

When the librarian went through the selection at our grasps, this was one of the ones that caught my attention. The basic idea that she explained was that he book goes through how even though they teach that both genders should be treated the same, they shouldn't. I only took a quick glance at it, but I think that this could be fairly interesting.

Completely by chance, I opened to the following part of the book:
-"How can a gay guy have sex with a girl?" Paul asked.
-"Easy," I said. "The guy just imagines that he's having sex with another guy."

Although not the entire book is this way, I think that I can come to enjoy this.

Labels: Books, Kids, School

'nuff said

Labels: Kids, Music, Video, YouTube